Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Influence of Eugenia uniflora Extract on Adhesion to Human Buccal Epithelial Cells, Biofilm Formation, and Cell Surface Hydrophobicity of Candida spp. from the Oral Cavity of Kidney Transplant Recipients.

This study evaluated the influence of the extract of Eugenia uniflora in adhesion to human buccal epithelial cells (HBEC) biofilm formation and cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) of Candida spp. isolated from the oral cavity of kidney transplant patients. To evaluate virulence attributes in vitro, nine yeasts were grown in the presence and absence of 1000 µg/mL of the extract. Adhesion was quantified using the number of Candida cells adhered to 150 HBEC determined by optical microscope. Biofilm formation was evaluated using two methodologies: XTT (2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide) and crystal violet assay, and further analyzed by electronic scan microscopy. CSH was quantified with the microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons test. We could detect that the extract of E. uniflora was able to reduce adhesion to HBEC and CSH for both Candida albicans and non-Candida albicansCandida species. We also observed a statistically significant reduced ability to form biofilms in biofilm-producing strains using both methods of quantification. However, two highly biofilm-producing strains of Candida tropicalis had a very large reduction in biofilm formation. This study reinforces the idea that besides growth inhibition, E. uniflora may interfere with the expression of some virulence factors of Candida spp. and may be possibly applied in the future as a novel antifungal agent.

Interchangeability of different COVID-19 vaccine platforms as booster doses: A phase 3 study mimicking real-world practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is over but the highly immunized or naturally exposed global population still requires booster vaccinations against newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We assessed safety and immunogenicity of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines based on three different platforms in a setting that mimics the current routine practice in Brazil. METHODS: In this phase 3 study from 14 February 2023 to 12 June 2023 we enrolled previously immunized adults to receive an additional booster dose of one of three vaccines. Immunogenicity against ancestor SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BF.7, BQ.1.1.3, and XBB.1.5.6 sub-lineages was measured as ELISA IgG or virus neutralizing (VNT) antibodies and safety/reactogenicity assessed using diary cards. RESULTS: Volunteers with a history of full primary COVID-19 immunization striated to three cohorts according to their previous booster vaccination history-0 (n = 26), 1 (n = 140) or 2 (n = 606) booster vaccinations-were randomized 2:1:1 to receive either recombinant protein (SCB-2019, Clover), adenovirus-vector (ChAdOx1-S, AstraZeneca/Fiocruz), or mRNA (BNT162b2, Pfizer/Wyeth). Baseline antibody titers were higher in individuals who had received one or two boosters and titers against both ancestor and Omicron sub-lineages increased in all groups regardless of the number of previous booster doses or the vaccine used. Day 28 geometric mean titers (GMTs) and geometric mean-fold rises (GMFR) against all variants were higher after BNT162b than SCB-2019 or ChAdOx1-S, but BNT162b groups displayed more rapid antibody waning at Day 84. Within cohorts each vaccine elicited similar GMFR against the different SARS-CoV-2 strains. All vaccines were well tolerated with similar solicited reactogenicity profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Protein, adenovirus-vector or mRNA vaccine boosters were equally well tolerated and immunogenic against ancestor SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron sub-lineages in fully primed adults with 0-2 prior boosters. BNT162b induced the highest immune responses but also the most rapid waning of antibodies 3 months after vaccination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05812586.

Effect of the Ethyl Acetate Fraction of Eugenia uniflora on Proteins Global Expression during Morphogenesis in Candida albicans.

Candida albicans is able to switch from yeast to hyphal growth and this is an essential step for tissue invasion and establishment of infection. Due to the limited drug arsenal used to treat fungal infections and the constant emergence of resistant strains, it is important to search for new therapeutic candidates. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate by proteomic analysis the role of a natural product (Eugenia uniflora) in impairing hypha formation in C. albicans. We also tested the potential action of E. uniflora to prevent and treat oral candidiasis induced in a murine model of oral infection and the ability of polymorphonuclear neutrophils to phagocytize C. albicans cells treated with the ethyl acetate fraction of the extract. We found that this fraction greatly reduced hypha formation after morphogenesis induction in the presence of serum. Besides, several proteins were differentially expressed in cells treated with the fraction. Surprisingly, the ethyl acetate fraction significantly reduced phagocytosis in C. albicans (Mean 120.36 ± 36.71 yeasts/100 PMNs vs. 44.68 ± 19.84 yeasts/100 PMNs). Oral candidiasis was attenuated when C. albicans cells were either pre-incubated in the presence of E. uniflora or when the fraction was applied to the surface of the oral cavity after infection. These results were consistent with the reduction in CFU counts (2.36 vs. 1.85 Log10 CFU/ml) and attenuation of tissue damage observed with histopathological analysis of animals belonging to treated group. We also observed shorter true hyphae by direct examination and histopathological analysis, when cells were treated with the referred natural product. The E. uniflora ethyl acetate fraction was non-toxic to human cells. E. uniflora may act on essential proteins mainly related to cellular structure, reducing the capacity of filamentation and attenuating infection in a murine model, without causing any toxic effect on human cells, suggesting that it may be a future therapeutic alternative for the treatment of Candida infections.

Carbohydrate assimilation profiles of Brazilian Candida dubliniensis isolates based on ID 32C system.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the identification of 19 Brazilian C. dubliniensis based on the biochemical profile exhibited when tested by the commercial identification kit ID 32C (bioMerieux). Thirteen of the isolates were rigorously identified as C. dubliniensis and the remaining isolates (six) were considered as having a doubtful profile but the software also suggested that there was 83.6% of chances for them to be C. dubliniensis. As well as pointed by the literature the identification obtained by phenotypic tests should be considered presumptive for C. dubliniensis due to variability of this new species.

Carbohydrate assimilation profiles of Brazilian Candida dubliniensis isolates based on ID 32C system

Dezenove culturas de C. dubliniensis isoladas no Brasil, previamente identificadas através de métodos genotípicos, foram avaliadas pelo kit comercial ID 32C (bioMerieux). Treze culturas foram identificadas como C. dubliniensis, mas as demais (seis) evidenciaram perfil duvidoso, embora o software do sistema sugerisse 83,6% de chances das mesmas pertencerem à espécie C. dubliniensis. A literatura tem registrado grande variabilidade fenotípica com esta espécie e, por isto, as identificações obtidas com este sistema deverão ser consideradas como presuntivas.